Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls. One can figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds. And how far away the fielder was when it was struck. I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work. But it could be done.

If you could collect that data and then sell it to teams who each have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, it would probably be worth it, right?

Not when it's considered flawed. Or imperfect.

Honestly, there's a lot one can see with the eye that really doesn't require millions of dollars or years of data. I'm an old ******* softball player. I can tell which guys take bad angles after about 3 plays.

Seriously, did you need computer data to tell you Cabrera isn't all that good at 3B?

Nope. But you don't need stats to be able to tell that Cabrera is a good hitter, that Chris Stewart is an awful hitter, that Kershaw is a great pitcher, and that Phil Hughes is a bad pitcher, either.

But if you want to know how much better or how much worse player A is compared to player B because you're about to sign one for millions of dollars, quantifying their performance is incredibly important.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):I don't think it's that complicated to "do the work" on batted balls. One can figure out the velocity of a ball hit 273 feet that lands in 2.2 seconds. And how far away the fielder was when it was struck. I suppose, with enough data, one could figure out what the "average" is of those balls being caught.

Seems like a lot of tiring work. But it could be done.

Probably need wind velocity, humidity, and dew point levels also. Toss in altitude and HGH levels to the equation and you have it nailed.

I haven't read every post in here, but with regards to defense being so heavily weighted, I think it makes sense. Despite arguments to the contrary, defense rarely slumps. Hitting slumps are understandable because pitchers adjust and pitch hitters to their weaknesses, plus the average pitcher has 3 different pitches. When you're fielding a ground ball, save for the odd bad hop, there aren't 3 distinct possibilities for the direction that ball can bounce. Physics and angles don't really change when it comes to a bouncing ball or a ball in flight. If a defender has the ability to play a ball, then he is not going to suddenly lose that ability. Just like hitters don't suddenly lose the ability to hit - they're just facing many more variables in trying to put the bat on the ball.

In other words, if an all-offensive guy - like Ortiz or Cuddyer - slumps, he really has no value. If Machado slumps at the plate, he still has a ton of value in the field and that value is highly unlikely to decline.

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/17/2013 1:42:00 PM (view original):I haven't read every post in here, but with regards to defense being so heavily weighted, I think it makes sense. Despite arguments to the contrary, defense rarely slumps. Hitting slumps are understandable because pitchers adjust and pitch hitters to their weaknesses, plus the average pitcher has 3 different pitches. When you're fielding a ground ball, save for the odd bad hop, there aren't 3 distinct possibilities for the direction that ball can bounce. Physics and angles don't really change when it comes to a bouncing ball or a ball in flight. If a defender has the ability to play a ball, then he is not going to suddenly lose that ability. Just like hitters don't suddenly lose the ability to hit - they're just facing many more variables in trying to put the bat on the ball.

In other words, if an all-offensive guy - like Ortiz or Cuddyer - slumps, he really has no value. If Machado slumps at the plate, he still has a ton of value in the field and that value is highly unlikely to decline.

I agree defense has plenty of value. But that's one the problems I have with this stat - it varies and swings back and forth so often when it's supposed to be measuring a statistic that's supposed to be pretty static overall.

I disagree with the premise that slumps are primarily caused by pitchers pitching to a hitter's weakness - pitchers should always be trying to do that. I would think slumps come about for a variety of reasons - pitchers, luck/randomness, injury, confidence, motivation, or any combination of those and other things not top of mind right now. Most of those could affect fielding (or pitching), too, so I don't see why defense would be immune to slumps. Maybe the swings aren't as severe as the ups and downs of pitching or hitting production - that seems like it might be true but I'm not really sure. It doesn't even have to be about slumps, but maybe differences come about because of differences in opportunities. Some teams give up hundreds more balls in play than other teams. Some teams give up hundreds more or less balls in play one year than they do the next. That swing in opportunities is going to create some movement by itself.

I applaud the effort to measure the things that go into defense beyond the metrics I grew up with - fielding percentage and, later, range factor - that only measure performance on balls in play that were turned into outs or that were so routine they should have resulted in outs. Not every play is a routine ground ball subject only to a potential bad bounce. Balls come off the bat with spin and at varying speeds and angles, just like pitches. Fielders usually have more time to react than hitters do but they also have a lot of ground to cover, especially in the OF. And fielding/catching the ball is just one aspect of defense. You still have to throw accurately, cover your base in the infield, make good decisions to prevent guys from advancing "extra" bases, etc. I think stats like dWAR are a step in the right direction, it's just hard to know how "right" it is with all the adjustments that are made and since the metrics are still evolving. That does make it hard to trust, so I get the backlash, but I definitely like what it's trying to do.

I would think a fielding "slump" would most likely be caused by injury/lapse of concentration. You don't suddenly start taking bad angles/getting late breaks randomly. With hitting, the opponent is actively trying to make you fail. With fielding, the opponent is simply trying to succeed. While hitters can certainly hit to specific fields, they cannot hit to specific areas. No batter has ever said "I'm gonna hit this one 234 feet, 4 feet off the line and with spin to the right."

The so-called "Turf-&-Grass" numbers (a 'staple' now) were insisted upon
by the Nevada bookies, @ least 30 years ago... The bottom-line mattered to
them THAT much, convinced it was in the numbers, where it was supposed
to be...

Can understand the desire to look @ life thru numbers... Everywhere U look,
as though the numbers are hidden, collective hunger is fed by new ways to
find them, only to end-up having to review them again, because that hunger
never goes away...

Loved "the_Taint's" view, & choice of words here to describe it... Kind of like
how FAR people have NOT gone YET, to discover what they must find...

Lawn sprinkler settings... The wattage/voltage of flood-lights on both coasts,
& did those umpires really stay @ a Howard Johnson's Inn last nite (???)...

There are just too many things in the life of baseball, that can never have a
"number" that translates into any reasonable degree of predictability... This
pursuit here, to declare that your crystal-ball will work best, when applying it
to the WAR numbers inputed, will still ultimately prove that the "crystal-ball"
should be taken back to WalMart, so that the $4.98 can be refunded...

Have appreciated this thread, & none of us who play here will EVER see an
"Umpire Pop-Up Menu", so we can choose where our precious umpires can
rest-up for the next game... Baby those guys... They mean everything here !!!...

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/19/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):I would think a fielding "slump" would most likely be caused by injury/lapse of concentration. You don't suddenly start taking bad angles/getting late breaks randomly. With hitting, the opponent is actively trying to make you fail. With fielding, the opponent is simply trying to succeed. While hitters can certainly hit to specific fields, they cannot hit to specific areas. No batter has ever said "I'm gonna hit this one 234 feet, 4 feet off the line and with spin to the right."

This makes sense to me. I'd still add luck/randomness to it. It's easy to find hitting or pitching results by month, I don't know if fielding splits exist. I'd just like to see it.